We were put into groups for our first seminar on the context of practice and we were told to discuss the new LCA prospectus for next year. We were told to look at the design, layout and function of the book. After working in groups we got together as a class and identified features we thought were successful and unsuccessful. Most of the comments made were on the unsuccessful side due to the fact that the prospectus was designed by students at LCA, and we felt that it didn't really reflect the collage in its design.
1- I personally quite liked the front cover, I thought it was quite bold and they used an embossing technique on the letters to give it a bit more attention to detail. I think though the colours could have been different as im not sure really how well the red and blue work together.
2- The photos chosen in the prospectus were really strange, most of them looked like they had been taken last minute to put into the book and they were trying overly hard to look arty, with strangely angled shots of stacks of paper and things.
3- The layout was another weirdly designed feature in the book, the photos were just dotted about on the page with no real structure or consistency to the placement of them. this is the same case for the type.
4- The typeface used was pretty standard, but it remained consistent for all type used in the prospectus, the headers were all the same and the body of texts on the pages looked really boring and not very inviting to read.
5- Some one pointed out in the group that the paper quality changed halfway through just randomly i dont know if there is an explanation for this but I just think it was poorly put together.
Overall I felt this wasn't the most successful piece of design coming out of LCA, I just reached the conclusion that whoever designed the prospectus must of had too much blog work to do to actually do a proper job.
